5 ms·

At least you might be summoning Walter Bright in talking about D. One of my favorite languages I wish more companies would use. Unfortunately for its own sake,

At least you might be summoning Walter Bright in talking about D. One of my favorite languages I wish more companies would use. Unfortunately for its own sake, Go and Rust are way more popular in the industry.

pjmlp 1y ago
Unfortunately it lost the opportunity back when Remedy Games and Facebook were betting on it. The various WIP features, and switching focus of what might bring more people into the ecosystem, have given away to other languages. Even C#, Java and C++ have gotten many of features that were only available in D as Andrei Alexandrescu's book came out in 2011.
- Clouudy 1y ago
  I wouldn't say that it's unable to make a comeback, there is still a valid use case from my experience with it. The syntax, mixed-memory model, UFCS, and compilation speed are nice quality of life features compared to C++, and it's still a native binary compared to C# and Java. So if you're starting out with a new project from scratch there's not much reason not to beyond documentation reasons. And you can interface pretty easily to C/C++ as well as pretty much any other language designed for that sort of thing, but without a lot of syntax changes like Carbon. I imagine that the scope of its uses has shrunk as other languages caught up, and I don't think it's necessarily a good language for general enterprise stuff (unless you're dealing with C++), but for new projects it's still valid IMO. I think that the biggest field it could be used in is probably games too, especially if you're already writing a new engine from scratch. You could start with the GC and then ease off of it as the project develops in order to speed up development, for example. And D could always add newer features again too, tbh.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    You always have to compare ecosystems, not programming languages syntax on their own. Another thing that Java and C# got to do since 2011, is that AOT is also part of the ecosystem and free of charge (Java has had commercial compilers for a while), so not even a native binary is an advantage as you imagine. First D has to finish what is already there in features that are almost done but not quite.
    - Clouudy 1y ago
      TBH I don't necessarily think that ecosystem is what matters in every application, but it is necessary for most people, I agree. And I do agree with finishing a lot of the half-baked features too, but I'm unsure if the people maintaining the language have the will or the means to do that. Do you have any other ideas about how D could stand out again?
      - pjmlp 1y ago
        It is what matters, as most companies pick languages based on SDKs, not the other way around being one pony trick and trying to solve everything with the same language. That is why outside startups selling a specific product, most IT departments are polyglot. For D to stand out, there must be a Rails, Docker like framework, something, that is getting such a buzz that makes early adopters want to go play with D. However I don't see it happening on LLM age, where at a whim of a prompt thoughts can be generated in whatever language, which is only a transition step until we start having agent runtimes.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  C#, Java and C++ have poor copies of the D features. For example, C++ constexpr is a bad design because a special keyword to signify evaluating at compile time is completely redundant. (Just trigger on constexpr in the grammar.) C++ modules, well, they should have more closely copied D modules!
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    They might have, still they are good enough to keep people on those ecosystems and not bother at all with D, and tbe current adoption warts concerning IDE tooling and available libraries. Worse is better approach tends to always win.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      Good enough is fine until one discovers how much better it can be.
      - pjmlp 1y ago
        Unfortunately the opportunity window is gone now, and in the LLM age programming languages are becoming less relevant, when programming itself increasingly turns into coordinating agents.
  - az09mugen 1y ago
    I have a very naïve and maybe dumb question coming from someone who is used to scripting languages. It's about the `auto` keyword, while being a nice feature, why is it necessary to write it down ? Isn't it possible to basically say to the compiler : "Hey you see this var declared with no type ? Assume by yourself there is an `auto` keyword."
mort96 1y ago
I feel like back when D might've been a language worth looking into, it was hampered by the proprietary compilers. And still today, the first thought that comes to mind when I think D is "that language with proprietary compilers", even though there has apparently been some movement on that front? Not really worth looking into now that we have Go as an excellent GC'd compiled language and Rust as an excellent C++ replacement. Having two different languages for those purposes seems like a better idea anyway than having one "optionally managed" language. I can't even imagine how that could possibly work in a way that doesn't just fragment the community.
- sfpotter 1y ago
  Sounds like you should look into it instead of idly speculating! Also, the funny thing about a divisive feature is that it doesn't matter if it fragments the community if you can use it successfully. There are a lot of loud people in the D community who freak out and whine about the GC, and there are plenty more quiet ones who are happily getting things done without making much noise. It's a great language.
  - mort96 1y ago
    Are you saying that if I'm using D-without-GC, I can use any D library, including ones written with the assumption that there is a GC? If not, how does it not fracture the community? > There are a lot of loud people in the D community who freak out and whine about the GC, and there are plenty more quiet ones who are happily getting things done without making much noise This sounds like an admission that the community is fractured, except with a weirdly judgemental tone towards those who use D without a GC?
    - MrRadar 1y ago
      > Are you saying that if I'm using D-without-GC, I can use any D library, including ones written with the assumption that there is a GC? If not, how does it not fracture the community? "Are you saying that if I'm using Rust in the Linux kernel, I can use any Rust library, including ones written with the assumption they will be running in userspace? If not, how does that not fracture the community?" "Are you saying that if I'm using C++ in an embedded environment without runtime type information and exceptions, I can use any C++ library, including ones written with the assumption they can use RTTI/exceptions? If not, how does that not fracture the community?" You can make this argument about a lot of languages and particular subsets/restrictions on them that are needed in specific circumstances. If you need to write GC-free code in D you can do it. Yes, it restricts what parts of the library ecosystem you can use, but that's not different from any other langauge that has wide adoption in a wide variety of applications. It turns out that in reality most applications don't need to be GC-free (the massive preponderance of GC languages is indicative of this) and GC makes them much easier and safer to write. I think most people in the D community are tired of people (especially outsiders) constantly rehashing discussions about GC. It was a much more salient topic before the core language supported no-GC mode, but now that it does it's up to individuals to decide what the cost/benefit analysis is for writing GC vs no-GC code (including the availability of third-party libraries in each mode).

pjmlp 1y ago

Unfortunately it lost the opportunity back when Remedy Games and Facebook were betting on it. The various WIP features, and switching focus of what might bring more people into the ecosystem, have given away to other languages. Even C#, Java and C++ have gotten many of features that were only available in D as Andrei Alexandrescu's book came out in 2011.

Clouudy 1y ago
I wouldn't say that it's unable to make a comeback, there is still a valid use case from my experience with it. The syntax, mixed-memory model, UFCS, and compilation speed are nice quality of life features compared to C++, and it's still a native binary compared to C# and Java. So if you're starting out with a new project from scratch there's not much reason not to beyond documentation reasons. And you can interface pretty easily to C/C++ as well as pretty much any other language designed for that sort of thing, but without a lot of syntax changes like Carbon. I imagine that the scope of its uses has shrunk as other languages caught up, and I don't think it's necessarily a good language for general enterprise stuff (unless you're dealing with C++), but for new projects it's still valid IMO. I think that the biggest field it could be used in is probably games too, especially if you're already writing a new engine from scratch. You could start with the GC and then ease off of it as the project develops in order to speed up development, for example. And D could always add newer features again too, tbh.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  You always have to compare ecosystems, not programming languages syntax on their own. Another thing that Java and C# got to do since 2011, is that AOT is also part of the ecosystem and free of charge (Java has had commercial compilers for a while), so not even a native binary is an advantage as you imagine. First D has to finish what is already there in features that are almost done but not quite.
  - Clouudy 1y ago
    TBH I don't necessarily think that ecosystem is what matters in every application, but it is necessary for most people, I agree. And I do agree with finishing a lot of the half-baked features too, but I'm unsure if the people maintaining the language have the will or the means to do that. Do you have any other ideas about how D could stand out again?
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      It is what matters, as most companies pick languages based on SDKs, not the other way around being one pony trick and trying to solve everything with the same language. That is why outside startups selling a specific product, most IT departments are polyglot. For D to stand out, there must be a Rails, Docker like framework, something, that is getting such a buzz that makes early adopters want to go play with D. However I don't see it happening on LLM age, where at a whim of a prompt thoughts can be generated in whatever language, which is only a transition step until we start having agent runtimes.
WalterBright 1y ago
C#, Java and C++ have poor copies of the D features. For example, C++ constexpr is a bad design because a special keyword to signify evaluating at compile time is completely redundant. (Just trigger on constexpr in the grammar.) C++ modules, well, they should have more closely copied D modules!
- pjmlp 1y ago
  They might have, still they are good enough to keep people on those ecosystems and not bother at all with D, and tbe current adoption warts concerning IDE tooling and available libraries. Worse is better approach tends to always win.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    Good enough is fine until one discovers how much better it can be.
    - pjmlp 1y ago
      Unfortunately the opportunity window is gone now, and in the LLM age programming languages are becoming less relevant, when programming itself increasingly turns into coordinating agents.
- az09mugen 1y ago
  I have a very naïve and maybe dumb question coming from someone who is used to scripting languages. It's about the `auto` keyword, while being a nice feature, why is it necessary to write it down ? Isn't it possible to basically say to the compiler : "Hey you see this var declared with no type ? Assume by yourself there is an `auto` keyword."

mort96 1y ago

I feel like back when D might've been a language worth looking into, it was hampered by the proprietary compilers. And still today, the first thought that comes to mind when I think D is "that language with proprietary compilers", even though there has apparently been some movement on that front? Not really worth looking into now that we have Go as an excellent GC'd compiled language and Rust as an excellent C++ replacement. Having two different languages for those purposes seems like a better idea anyway than having one "optionally managed" language. I can't even imagine how that could possibly work in a way that doesn't just fragment the community.

sfpotter 1y ago
Sounds like you should look into it instead of idly speculating! Also, the funny thing about a divisive feature is that it doesn't matter if it fragments the community if you can use it successfully. There are a lot of loud people in the D community who freak out and whine about the GC, and there are plenty more quiet ones who are happily getting things done without making much noise. It's a great language.
- mort96 1y ago
  Are you saying that if I'm using D-without-GC, I can use any D library, including ones written with the assumption that there is a GC? If not, how does it not fracture the community? > There are a lot of loud people in the D community who freak out and whine about the GC, and there are plenty more quiet ones who are happily getting things done without making much noise This sounds like an admission that the community is fractured, except with a weirdly judgemental tone towards those who use D without a GC?
  - MrRadar 1y ago
    > Are you saying that if I'm using D-without-GC, I can use any D library, including ones written with the assumption that there is a GC? If not, how does it not fracture the community? "Are you saying that if I'm using Rust in the Linux kernel, I can use any Rust library, including ones written with the assumption they will be running in userspace? If not, how does that not fracture the community?" "Are you saying that if I'm using C++ in an embedded environment without runtime type information and exceptions, I can use any C++ library, including ones written with the assumption they can use RTTI/exceptions? If not, how does that not fracture the community?" You can make this argument about a lot of languages and particular subsets/restrictions on them that are needed in specific circumstances. If you need to write GC-free code in D you can do it. Yes, it restricts what parts of the library ecosystem you can use, but that's not different from any other langauge that has wide adoption in a wide variety of applications. It turns out that in reality most applications don't need to be GC-free (the massive preponderance of GC languages is indicative of this) and GC makes them much easier and safer to write. I think most people in the D community are tired of people (especially outsiders) constantly rehashing discussions about GC. It was a much more salient topic before the core language supported no-GC mode, but now that it does it's up to individuals to decide what the cost/benefit analysis is for writing GC vs no-GC code (including the availability of third-party libraries in each mode).